?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Angry Dance Begins. - Sauce1977 [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Sauce1977

[ Userinfo | Sauce1977 Userinfo ]
[ Archive | Sauce1977 Archive ]

Angry Dance Begins. [Jun. 28th, 2004|01:45 pm]
Sauce1977
[In the Moment |annoyedannoyed]
[Special Music |DJ Testosterone - 121103 Mix]


Consider, if you will:

http://www.comcast.net/News/ENTERTAINMENT//XML/1402_Movies/cedd2788-fee5-4465-b6b6-8bafdd37d2a7.html

Topic: How Michael Moore's piece is making execs hard and wet.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The views of one Sauce1977 are definitely not confused with that of anyone else. As follows:

Wrong, wrong, wrong WRONG WRONG FUCKING WRONG.

From the article:

By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie Writer

LOS ANGELES - Since the early days of cinema, documentaries have served as inquisitive, truth-seeking counterparts to make-believe drama.

The difference today is, people are actually watching them.

Long viewed as dusty reminders of dreary educational films people watched in school, documentaries have put on a fresh face and caught audiences' attention.

Encouraged by enthusiastic crowds at film festivals that showcase documentaries, distributors are snapping up nonfiction films and theaters are more inclined to book them. Primed by the surge in reality television, moviegoers are hungrier for stories of real people.

Back to Sauce1977:

Mr. Germain, wait a minute.

I'll save you the scathing emotions of bile and phlegm, but the opening statement draws furious feelings from me.

Let's look at that first sentence:

Since the early days of cinema, documentaries have served as inquisitive, truth-seeking counterparts to make-believe drama.

Right there, that's the problem . . . truth.

Documentary . . . my ass.

What truth?

Tell me, Mr. Moore and Mr. Germain, just how many exaggerations were made to arrive to the 'truths' in the piece? People are watching them because it is ENTERTAINMENT.



At least, lie to me like all the politicians do. They do it with style.
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: renazle_dazzle
2004-06-28 02:58 pm (UTC)

Viva moore!

Michael Moore never really has an answer. He has a series of questions with interesting facts to back it up. (Like "But what about..." and "could it be?....") The movie was entertaining.
There was truth in that movie. Every dead child piled up in that Iraqi's truck, that wasn't fiction. woman from flint who had the son die, that wasn't fiction.
the 9/11 footage was really not fiction.
Sure there were some exagerations. But at least they were damn entertaining.
But all in all, this movie was just an Opinion of Michael Moore. And I guess he and I share the same opinions.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2004-06-28 03:39 pm (UTC)

Re: Viva moore!

That's my point.

It's wonderful entertainment.

To call it a documentary, as written by Mr. Germain, would be to misplace the word 'documentary' with 'entertainment.'

The implication of truth goes in hand with the mention of documentary.

Documentaries show how things are.

This showed us how to laugh at all of the nonsense. It's entertainment with a shred of truth, scattered here and there.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: longlivepeach
2004-06-28 03:11 pm (UTC)
well, i wouldn't expect an entertainment article to get politics right, anyway. they're written with completely different mindsets. entertainment articles, even when they talk about the business side of things, tend to be superficial.
but, it is true: documentaries are getting more viewers now than they had before. or, at least, they're getting more exposure and making more waves. which, i think, is the main thrust of the rest of the article.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2004-06-28 03:41 pm (UTC)
You mean, entertainment, as Moore has perfected with the 'shock-u-mentary,' has become very profitable.

Documentaries remain truthful as an implication, and therefore, society seems not to enjoy the truth. It is not profitable.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: longlivepeach
2004-06-28 03:59 pm (UTC)
i haven't seen it. what did michael moore lie about or exaggerate?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2004-06-28 04:06 pm (UTC)
Well, I look at it this way.

Lies and exaggerations breed more.

This was pretty much bought and paid for by everyone who dislikes George W. Bush.

There are a lotta folks who don't like him.

That being the aside, what was really amusing was the notes made by Moore, of which I've known for quite some time.

I'll give you a hint of the shocking revelations by citing one. You really should see it.

*Revelation: War is fought by the poor.

No shit. Gee, that's been going on since before history was recorded.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: longlivepeach
2004-06-28 04:55 pm (UTC)
hmmm.. i don't know, then. i was thinking it would upset me more, but if it's just him saying things that we all know, i don't see how controversial it could be.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2004-06-28 05:07 pm (UTC)
The only way to know is to observe it.

Actually, I don't want to destroy the effect of the entertainment. It's a knee-slapper. He's really good at tossing the pies at Bush.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: mostlie_sunnie
2004-06-29 06:07 am (UTC)
I read lots of bad things about Bowling for Columbine-- it was full of exaggerations, half-truths, and bold lies... but I haven't read the same things about Fahrenheit 9/11.

I'm sure he still uses his same dramatic style, but apparently, the fact-checking was all done this time. That's what I've been reading, anyway. I haven't seen it yet.

I agree with Mr. Moore's views, but I'm not overly fond of his tactics.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2004-06-30 07:36 pm (UTC)
I'd say that this film is much less of a fair shake as compared to Bowling for Columbine.

I liked it for the entertainment, but to seriously consider what Moore has to say with this film, well, it would not be a good idea.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)